Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:24 AM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (anna Jones)
2. 07:23 AM - Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (swater6)
3. 07:55 AM - Re: Re: 601XL wing jig (Cndmovn)
4. 08:14 AM - Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (ashontz)
5. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (ernie)
6. 08:17 AM - Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (T. Graziano)
7. 08:19 AM - Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (ashontz)
8. 08:21 AM - Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (Sabrina)
9. 08:33 AM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (ernie)
10. 08:33 AM - Fitting the wings to the fuselage (Edward Moody II)
11. 08:45 AM - Re: Fitting the wings to the fuselage (Sabrina)
12. 08:54 AM - Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (pavel569)
13. 09:12 AM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (Terry Phillips)
14. 09:35 AM - Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (Tim Juhl)
15. 10:09 AM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (Rick Lindstrom)
16. 10:12 AM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (Larry Hursh)
17. 10:22 AM - SnF (was Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash) (Craig Payne)
18. 10:32 AM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (Gary Gower)
19. 11:29 AM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (Iberplanes IGL)
20. 11:42 AM - Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (William Dominguez)
21. 12:36 PM - Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (T. Graziano)
22. 12:48 PM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (James E. Lanier)
23. 01:32 PM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (Iberplanes IGL)
24. 02:49 PM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash (ernie)
25. 03:15 PM - Re: SnF (was Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash) (Rick Lindstrom)
26. 03:23 PM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S (John Reinking)
27. 03:41 PM - Re: SnF (was Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash) (Craig Payne)
28. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S (ernie)
29. 03:53 PM - Re: Really bad news....S (swater6)
30. 04:05 PM - Va Defined (Gig Giacona)
31. 04:25 PM - Re: Re: Really bad news....S (Cndmovn)
32. 06:16 PM - Vfe Va Vne AC 90-89A (Sabrina)
33. 06:49 PM - Re: 601 crashes (Gary Gower)
34. 06:53 PM - Re: Vfe Va Vne AC 90-89A (ernie)
35. 07:32 PM - Re: SnF (was Re: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash) (Rick Lindstrom)
36. 09:08 PM - Re: Vfe Va Vne AC 90-89A (Sabrina)
37. 10:07 PM - Re: Re: Vfe Va Vne AC 90-89A (Peter Chapman)
38. 10:26 PM - Re: Vfe Va Vne AC 90-89A (Sabrina)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
Wait ,Wait , Wait , When ,When , When .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
>
> Eye witness reports are notoriously unreliable, especially in a case like
> this where the witness may not be familiar with aircraft and is probably
> not a trained observer. Lets just wait for the evidence to be examined
> before we start speculating on what may have caused the crash.
>
> Eye witnesses in Australia also reported wings falling off in the recent
> crash there. It was later reported that the wings were intact and showed
> no signs of in-flight breakup when the plane was finally recovered from
> the sea floor.
>
> James E. Lanier wrote:
>> I am a bit concerned with the repeated reports of wings "popping off". I
>> would like to know the details of the previous failures. Does the failure
>> occur at the connection point of the removable wings?
>> Is the failure the bolts themselves, or are the spars failing ? I don't
>> know it the NTSB reports specify this. Does anyone know?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jay Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:08:53AM -0700, Tim Juhl wrote:
>>>
>>>> It gets worse.... here are some eyewitness accounts.
>>>> http://www.theledger.com/article/20080408/NEWS/804080399/1137/REPORTER
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh oh...here we go again:
>>>
>>> "Brownlow said he heard a "pretty loud pop" and looked up. He said one
>>> of
>>> the wings of the small plane, he thinks it was the right one, was
>>> flapping
>>> alongside the fuselage."
>>>
>>> My condolences to the pilot's family, whoever they may be.
>>>
>>
>> *
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> Zenith 601XL N61BM
> Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
Latest news:
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080409/NEWS/804090411/1338/NEWS00
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/4/8/338439.html
Pictures show wreckage but it's a mangled mess after coming through the trees and
hitting the ground. I won't speculate on what I see and don't see.
--------
601 XL kit N596SW reserved
Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage
www.scottwaters.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175697#175697
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL wing jig |
After using the jig and the PP kit, I can confirm that everything lines up.
The jig did help set the exact position of the rear spar attachments so that
they are level as per the instructions. I am not sure you could do the
location without it.
Having said that my kit is a year old and they may have updated the PP
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Ianrat <ianrat@powerup.com.au> wrote:
>
> We have just got to the stage of using the wing jig. We have a new kit
> Arrived 7th march 2008) with the pre drilled skins. The jig that was
> supplied with the kit was different size to the main spar that was supplied.
> There fore the holes did not line up. I contacted Zenith and was told that i
> did not need to use the jig because the floor skin was pre drilled. All that
> was required is to use the ply templates to set the angle.
>
> Ianrat
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175448#175448
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
I'm still in but have been very busy, can someone do some legwork on this please?
[quote="stshuck2(at)yahoo.com"]Someone stalled it...
I'm still In..
Iberplanes IGL wrote:
[quote] Oh no again,
What happened to the "independent engineer " we were supposed to pay in order
to get the XL checked.......
My condolences to the family.
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es (http://www.iberplanes.es/)
Igualada - Barcelona - Espa
> ---
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175705#175705
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
hi
The goverment is responsible for the report
Newspapers never follow up on anything
If you look at the goverment database you will get an idea how long things take
On 4/9/08, anna Jones <afjones@brazoriainet.com> wrote:
>
> Wait ,Wait , Wait , When ,When , When .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
>
>
> >
> > Eye witness reports are notoriously unreliable, especially in a case like
> > this where the witness may not be familiar with aircraft and is probably
> > not a trained observer. Lets just wait for the evidence to be examined
> > before we start speculating on what may have caused the crash.
> >
> > Eye witnesses in Australia also reported wings falling off in the recent
> > crash there. It was later reported that the wings were intact and showed
> > no signs of in-flight breakup when the plane was finally recovered from
> > the sea floor.
> >
> > James E. Lanier wrote:
> >> I am a bit concerned with the repeated reports of wings "popping off". I
> >> would like to know the details of the previous failures. Does the failure
> >> occur at the connection point of the removable wings?
> >> Is the failure the bolts themselves, or are the spars failing ? I don't
> >> know it the NTSB reports specify this. Does anyone know?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jay Maynard wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:08:53AM -0700, Tim Juhl wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It gets worse.... here are some eyewitness accounts.
> >>>> http://www.theledger.com/article/20080408/NEWS/804080399/1137/REPORTER
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Uh oh...here we go again:
> >>>
> >>> "Brownlow said he heard a "pretty loud pop" and looked up. He said one
> >>> of
> >>> the wings of the small plane, he thinks it was the right one, was
> >>> flapping
> >>> alongside the fuselage."
> >>>
> >>> My condolences to the pilot's family, whoever they may be.
> >>>
> >>
> >> *
> >
> > --
> > Bryan Martin
> > Zenith 601XL N61BM
> > Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
> > Do Not Archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
FYI:
"the aircraft appeared to struggle to maintain altitude, and sounded
as though it was suffering engine trouble before impact."
Excerpt from www.aero-news.net for 4/9/08
"Little is known at this time why a single-engine CH601 Zodiac crashed
Monday afternoon in Polk City, FL, claiming the life of the pilot and
sole occupant onboard.
Witnesses told local media the aircraft impacted nose-first near Tavares
Road at approximately 1715 local time. The wreckage was partially buried
in an area of wooded terrain.
Others on the ground say the aircraft appeared to struggle to maintain
altitude, and sounded as though it was suffering engine trouble before
impact."
Would it be a good idea to investigate funding an investigation
into the engineering and reliability of the various engines used on the
XL ---- or a better idea to wait for the accident investigation
findings into the probable cause.
Tony Graziano
XL; N493TG; 364 hours
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
Yes, I'm still interested, however I haven't had a lot of time for anything other
than work for the past month and into the next few months and am only now seeing
this thread on my lunch break. I would appreciate it if someone else took
the baton on this for awhile. I think there's been enough info in these threads
and some of my posts to present to someone to give a quote and take a look-see.
I'd be willing to go up to $200, I'd prefer it be less, I believe we had
about 30 people interested. 30 people at $200 is a full months pay for som professional.
I believe that's reasonable.
[quote="Terry Phillips"]I'm still in.
IIRC, Andy Shontz initiated the thread asking listers for a yea or nay on the
analysis. So, I'd hope that Andy would take the lead to make the analysis happen.
I'm not an aeronautical engineer, and I've never worked in the aerospace industries.
Consequently, I don't know any aeronautical engineers.
However, a former colleague from Los Alamos is the now Dean of Engineering at
Embry-Riddle, Prescott. If Andy is agreeable, I could send him an email to see
if he could recommend someone qualified and available to do the analysis. Let
me know if you're interested, Andy. He would need to know how much cash was on
the table. It would be worth 3 or 4 hundred bucks to me.
Terry
At 09:47 PM 4/8/2008 +0200, you wrote:
[quote]Oh no again,
What happened to the "independent engineer " we were supposed to pay in order
to get the XL checked.......
My condolences to the family.
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es (http://www.iberplanes.es)
Igualada - Barcelona - Espaquote]
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons are done;
working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/ (http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/)
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175710#175710
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
Does anyone find it strange someone would change the markings on such a beautiful
aircraft so much from the time of sale just a few months back? If you were
personalizing the tail number, but why go from 12" to 3" and keep the same number
unless you don't want someone to see your number. Watch the recovery videos
and compare it to the "for sale" site pictures. Several markings are different.
Both wings are attached in the video/stills, correct?
What about the heart-attack speculation in this video:
http://www.baynews9.com/VideoPlayer/index.html
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175711#175711
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
did not you start this?
I am out
On 4/9/08, ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
>
> I'm still in but have been very busy, can someone do some legwork on this
> please?
>
> [quote="stshuck2(at)yahoo.com"]Someone stalled it...
> I'm still In..
>
> Iberplanes IGL wrote:
> [quote] Oh no again,
>
>
> What happened to the "independent engineer " we were supposed to pay in
> order to get the XL checked.......
>
> My condolences to the family.
>
>
> Alberto Martin
> Iberplanes IGL
> http://www.iberplanes.es (http://www.iberplanes.es/)
> Igualada - Barcelona - Espa
>
> > ---
>
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175705#175705
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fitting the wings to the fuselage |
Hey Larry,
I am stumped in my search to find the instructions on how to
correctly set the wing sweep when fitting them to the fuselage. Wing
sweep obviously makes a huge difference in where and how much final
trimming is done on the inboard edge of the wing skins. Where in the
world has Zenith hidden this critical info?
Thanks,
Ed
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fitting the wings to the fuselage |
6-S-3 and 6-W-9
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175716#175716
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
I'm out.
> I'm still in but have been very busy, can someone do some legwork on this please?
--------
Pavel
CA
Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
Tail, flaps, ailerons done, right wing on the table ....
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175719#175719
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
Andy--I'll take that as a "Go ahead and see if you can get a
recommendation." I'll send my friend an email to see if he can recommend
someone to do the analysis. I'll post whatever I learn.
Terry
At 08:16 AM 4/9/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Yes, I'm still interested, however I haven't had a lot of time for
>anything other than work for the past month and into the next few months
>and am only now seeing this thread on my lunch break. I would appreciate
>it if someone else took the baton on this for awhile. I think there's been
>enough info in these threads and some of my posts to present to someone to
>give a quote and take a look-see. I'd be willing to go up to $200, I'd
>prefer it be less, I believe we had about 30 people interested. 30 people
>at $200 is a full months pay for som professional. I believe that's reasonable.
>
>[quote="Terry Phillips"]I'm still in.
>
> IIRC, Andy Shontz initiated the thread asking listers for a yea or nay
> on the analysis. So, I'd hope that Andy would take the lead to make the
> analysis happen.
>
> I'm not an aeronautical engineer, and I've never worked in the aerospace
> industries. Consequently, I don't know any aeronautical engineers.
>
> However, a former colleague from Los Alamos is the now Dean of
> Engineering at Embry-Riddle, Prescott. If Andy is agreeable, I could send
> him an email to see if he could recommend someone qualified and available
> to do the analysis. Let me know if you're interested, Andy. He would need
> to know how much cash was on the table. It would be worth 3 or 4 hundred
> bucks to me.
>
> Terry
>
>
> At 09:47 PM 4/8/2008 +0200, you wrote:
> [quote]Oh no again,
>
>
> What happened to the "independent engineer " we were supposed to pay in
> order to get the XL checked.......
>
> My condolences to the family.
>
>
> Alberto Martin
> Iberplanes IGL
> http://www.iberplanes.es (http://www.iberplanes.es)
> Igualada - Barcelona - Espaquote]
>
> Terry Phillips
> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> Corvallis MT
> 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
> are done; working on the wings
> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/ (http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/)
> > [b]
>
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>CH601XL - Corvair
>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175710#175710
>
>
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
Sabrina and fellow builders,
It's possible the N numbers were vinyl and the new owner preferred the look of
the 3 inch numbers over the 12 inch.
>From what I can see by studying the picture of the aircraft being recovered, both
wings are still associated with the main wreckage with the section of the
spar where the fuel tanks rest exposed (tanks probably tore away). The rudder
and horizontal tail are absent along with the main gear. I can't tell if the
engine or anything FWF is still attached but it would not be unusual for it to
break free in such an extreme impact.
We will have to wait and hear what the investigators have to say when they eventually
publish their findings unless someone "in the know" releases some info
beforehand.
>From my experience in Search and Rescue, I can tell you that in most cases where
a plane went "straight in" with little damage to nearby foliage and the like
it was a "Stall-spin" accident. It would be premature to assume that such is
the case in this instance but being human, we are all impatient for answers.
For example, the mention of a "heart attack" in the news report was made by
someone with less knowledge of the accident than those of us who monitor this
list.
I think what bothers all of us the most is that we just don't know for sure whether
there is a structural issue with the aircraft or if the problems lies with
how we fly it. The thought that you could be flying along, doing everything
right and have a wing fail would scare anyone. On the other hand, if it is an
issue with pilots making abrupt forward elevator movements then we can deal
with that (training and control stops.) Gig's story of the model airplane is
a perfect example of the forces involved.
As I am still building my XL events such as the recent crash damp my enthusiasm
somewhat, but I am not ready to give up yet. That said, I do have one request
of Chris Heintz and Zenith aircraft which I can sum up as "Details." They published
pictures of the most recent structural tests but provided no specific
information on the results. Was the wing tested to -3 or to - 6 like it says
on my plans. They talk about an extensive flight test program... I would like
to know the details of such tests. For example - was the test aircraft exposed
to abrupt full control movements at maneuvering speed without experiencing
damage? The best way to quell wild speculation is to replace it with facts,
not just assurances.
Pardon me for being so windy...
Tim Juhl
Do not archive
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175728#175728
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
Guys, guys, guys...
(and Sabrina)
Here's what I know to be true from my visit to the Zenith display at Sun 'n' Fun
this morning. The aircraft that crashed was one of the first 601s made by Czech
Aircraft Works (CAW), and was recently acquired by the pilot involved in
the accident. He had owned the airplane for less than two months. No report
on his familiarity with the airplane.
Obviously, we're all saddened by the accident and our hearts go out to the family.
But further speculation on the cause really serves no useful purpose until
the facts come in.
As a 601 pilot, I also want to know what's up, if anything. But I'll leave the
investigation to those who have direct engineering knowledge of the airframe,
and the professional investigators. Frankly, Zenith isn't the kind of company
that would keep any known (or even suspected) issues hidden in order to sell
airframes.
They're just not that kind of people.
And yes, I'll continue to fly my Zodiac in the mean time.
Rick Lindstrom
N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net>
>Sent: Apr 9, 2008 12:32 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
>
>
>Sabrina and fellow builders,
>It's possible the N numbers were vinyl and the new owner preferred the look of
the 3 inch numbers over the 12 inch.
>
>>From what I can see by studying the picture of the aircraft being recovered,
both wings are still associated with the main wreckage with the section of the
spar where the fuel tanks rest exposed (tanks probably tore away). The rudder
and horizontal tail are absent along with the main gear. I can't tell if the
engine or anything FWF is still attached but it would not be unusual for it
to break free in such an extreme impact.
>
>We will have to wait and hear what the investigators have to say when they eventually
publish their findings unless someone "in the know" releases some info
beforehand.
>
>>From my experience in Search and Rescue, I can tell you that in most cases where
a plane went "straight in" with little damage to nearby foliage and the like
it was a "Stall-spin" accident. It would be premature to assume that such
is the case in this instance but being human, we are all impatient for answers.
For example, the mention of a "heart attack" in the news report was made by
someone with less knowledge of the accident than those of us who monitor this
list.
>
>I think what bothers all of us the most is that we just don't know for sure whether
there is a structural issue with the aircraft or if the problems lies with
how we fly it. The thought that you could be flying along, doing everything
right and have a wing fail would scare anyone. On the other hand, if it is
an issue with pilots making abrupt forward elevator movements then we can deal
with that (training and control stops.) Gig's story of the model airplane is
a perfect example of the forces involved.
>
>As I am still building my XL events such as the recent crash damp my enthusiasm
somewhat, but I am not ready to give up yet. That said, I do have one request
of Chris Heintz and Zenith aircraft which I can sum up as "Details." They
published pictures of the most recent structural tests but provided no specific
information on the results. Was the wing tested to -3 or to - 6 like it says
on my plans. They talk about an extensive flight test program... I would like
to know the details of such tests. For example - was the test aircraft exposed
to abrupt full control movements at maneuvering speed without experiencing
damage? The best way to quell wild speculation is to replace it with facts,
not just assurances.
>
>Pardon me for being so windy...
>
>Tim Juhl
>
>Do not archive
>
>--------
>______________
>CFII
>Champ L16A flying
>Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
>Working on fuselage
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175728#175728
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
Thanks Gig for the comment. We don't need to start any SPECULATIONS here do we??
We should only deal with FACTS and that will take time for Investigators to
find those answers and post them.
Regards,
Larry Hursh
CH601XL (Building from Kits - Just beginning)
(N601LL Reserved)
SkyriderSBN@Yahoo.com
Keep your eyes skyward - always!
__________________________________________________
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash) |
Rick, what's the most interesting thing you have seen at the show so far?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
Guys, guys, guys...
(and Sabrina)
Here's what I know to be true from my visit to the Zenith display at Sun 'n' Fun
this morning. The aircraft that crashed was one of the first 601s made by Czech
Aircraft Works (CAW), and was recently acquired by the pilot involved in
the accident. He had owned the airplane for less than two months. No report
on his familiarity with the airplane.
Obviously, we're all saddened by the accident and our hearts go out to the family.
But further speculation on the cause really serves no useful purpose until
the facts come in.
As a 601 pilot, I also want to know what's up, if anything. But I'll leave the
investigation to those who have direct engineering knowledge of the airframe,
and the professional investigators. Frankly, Zenith isn't the kind of company
that would keep any known (or even suspected) issues hidden in order to sell
airframes.
They're just not that kind of people.
And yes, I'll continue to fly my Zodiac in the mean time.
Rick Lindstrom
N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net>
>Sent: Apr 9, 2008 12:32 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
>
>
>Sabrina and fellow builders,
>It's possible the N numbers were vinyl and the new owner preferred the look of
the 3 inch numbers over the 12 inch.
>
>>From what I can see by studying the picture of the aircraft being recovered,
both wings are still associated with the main wreckage with the section of the
spar where the fuel tanks rest exposed (tanks probably tore away). The rudder
and horizontal tail are absent along with the main gear. I can't tell if the
engine or anything FWF is still attached but it would not be unusual for it
to break free in such an extreme impact.
>
>We will have to wait and hear what the investigators have to say when they eventually
publish their findings unless someone "in the know" releases some info
beforehand.
>
>>From my experience in Search and Rescue, I can tell you that in most cases where
a plane went "straight in" with little damage to nearby foliage and the like
it was a "Stall-spin" accident. It would be premature to assume that such
is the case in this instance but being human, we are all impatient for answers.
For example, the mention of a "heart attack" in the news report was made by
someone with less knowledge of the accident than those of us who monitor this
list.
>
>I think what bothers all of us the most is that we just don't know for sure whether
there is a structural issue with the aircraft or if the problems lies with
how we fly it. The thought that you could be flying along, doing everything
right and have a wing fail would scare anyone. On the other hand, if it is
an issue with pilots making abrupt forward elevator movements then we can deal
with that (training and control stops.) Gig's story of the model airplane is
a perfect example of the forces involved.
>
>As I am still building my XL events such as the recent crash damp my enthusiasm
somewhat, but I am not ready to give up yet. That said, I do have one request
of Chris Heintz and Zenith aircraft which I can sum up as "Details." They
published pictures of the most recent structural tests but provided no specific
information on the results. Was the wing tested to -3 or to - 6 like it says
on my plans. They talk about an extensive flight test program... I would like
to know the details of such tests. For example - was the test aircraft exposed
to abrupt full control movements at maneuvering speed without experiencing
damage? The best way to quell wild speculation is to replace it with facts,
not just assurances.
>
>Pardon me for being so windy...
>
>Tim Juhl
>
>Do not archive
>
>--------
>______________
>CFII
>Champ L16A flying
>Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
>Working on fuselage
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175728#175728
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
The 601 UL (European) and the 601 XL SP RTF (for sale in USA) from CZAW are two
diferent airplanes.
I remember talking to Chip (from CZAW), some time ago, when we bought our 701
RTF (ready To Fly)... Aabout the less gross weight in the 601 UL. they built,
compared to the gross weight for the XL RTF they offered as Sport Pilot category
in USA.
He told me that was that gross weight in the UL, because the European Ultralight
regs have stated that gross weight as limit for the Ultralight category
for a two seater.
The newer planes (now SP) were builts directly from the ZAC kits, until they
finish their deal.
Much of the European Uls that now are in the SP category, had to re design
and reinforce (like the SP parts in the 701 kits from ZAC), to comply with
the USA new gross limit for the SP category,
At least this is what I understood from those emails (if that german guy Altz...something...
I cant remember his name :-)..
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala Mexico
701 912S
Still building 801 XL kit Jab 3300.
DO NOT ARCHIVE.
pavel569 <pm569@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
According to FAA this N number was made by Czech Aircraft Works , so I guess its
the European ultralight version with standard empty weight of 595lbs, max gross
weight 992lbs. This type has (POH) the stall speeds as stated on the website
32 resp. 26knots.
--------
Pavel
CA
Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175531#175531
__________________________________________________
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
When the witness says both wings folding in together, makes me remember
the pictures I=B4ve seen for the Barcelona crash. Sorry I cant share
them because of the investigation still going on.
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Espa=F1a
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Gower
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
The 601 UL (European) and the 601 XL SP RTF (for sale in USA) from
CZAW are two diferent airplanes.
I remember talking to Chip (from CZAW), some time ago, when we bought
our 701 RTF (ready To Fly)... Aabout the less gross weight in the 601
UL. they built, compared to the gross weight for the XL RTF they
offered as Sport Pilot category in USA.
He told me that was that gross weight in the UL, because the
European Ultralight regs have stated that gross weight as limit for the
Ultralight category for a two seater.
The newer planes (now SP) were builts directly from the ZAC kits,
until they finish their deal.
Much of the European Uls that now are in the SP category, had to re
design and reinforce (like the SP parts in the 701 kits from ZAC),
to comply with the USA new gross limit for the SP category,
At least this is what I understood from those emails (if that german
guy Altz...something... I cant remember his name :-)..
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala Mexico
701 912S
Still building 801 XL kit Jab 3300.
DO NOT ARCHIVE.
pavel569 <pm569@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
According to FAA this N number was made by Czech Aircraft Works , so
I guess its the European ultralight version with standard empty weight
of 595lbs, max gross weight 992lbs. This type has (POH) the stall speeds
as stated on the website 32 resp. 26knots.
--------
Pavel
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
Is there any new info about the Barcelona crash?
[quote="Iberplanes"]When the witness says both wings folding in together, makes
me remember the pictures Ive seen for the Barcelona crash. Sorry I cant share
them because of the investigation still going on.
Alberto Martin
> ---
--------
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175748#175748
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
The other interesting aspect to the photos is with the amount of energy
released with the extreme structural deformations on impact, there
apparently was no post impact fire.
That along with "the aircraft appeared to struggle to maintain
altitude, and sounded as though it was suffering engine trouble before
impact." could indicate the possibility of little or no
Tony Graziano
------------
Subject: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
From: Tim Juhl (juhl@avci.net)
Date: Wed Apr 09 - 9:35 AM
Sabrina and fellow builders,
It's possible the N numbers were vinyl and the new owner preferred the
look of
the 3 inch numbers over the 12 inch.
>From what I can see by studying the picture of the aircraft being
recovered, both
wings are still associated with the main wreckage with the section of
the
spar where the fuel tanks rest exposed (tanks probably tore away). The
rudder
and horizontal tail are absent along with the main gear. I can't tell
if the
engine or anything FWF is still attached but it would not be unusual for
it to
break free in such an extreme impact.
We will have to wait and hear what the investigators have to say when
they eventually
publish their findings unless someone "in the know" releases some info
beforehand.
>From my experience in Search and Rescue, I can tell you that in most
cases where
a plane went "straight in" with little damage to nearby foliage and the
like
it was a "Stall-spin" accident. It would be premature to assume that
such is
the case in this instance but being human, we are all impatient for
answers.
For example, the mention of a "heart attack" in the news report was made
by
someone with less knowledge of the accident than those of us who monitor
this
list.
I think what bothers all of us the most is that we just don't know for
sure whether
there is a structural issue with the aircraft or if the problems lies
with
how we fly it. The thought that you could be flying along, doing
everything
right and have a wing fail would scare anyone. On the other hand, if it
is an
issue with pilots making abrupt forward elevator movements then we can
deal
with that (training and control stops.) Gig's story of the model
airplane is
a perfect example of the forces involved.
As I am still building my XL events such as the recent crash damp my
enthusiasm
somewhat, but I am not ready to give up yet. That said, I do have one
request
of Chris Heintz and Zenith aircraft which I can sum up as "Details."
They published
pictures of the most recent structural tests but provided no specific
information on the results. Was the wing tested to -3 or to - 6 like it
says
on my plans. They talk about an extensive flight test program... I
would like
to know the details of such tests. For example - was the test aircraft
exposed
to abrupt full control movements at maneuvering speed without
experiencing
damage? The best way to quell wild speculation is to replace it with
facts,
not just assurances.
Pardon me for being so windy...
Tim Juhl
Do not archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
Well put Tim. I also would like the results of any tests. Were they
static tests with sand bags or actual? Did they test it both positive
and negative? Did they test it to failure in order to inspect the spar
buckle location?
As a pilot who has made a violent evasive maneuver (Sun'n Fun actually
in 1978) I would like to know the ultimate load of failure. I am SURE
that in my near death experience with a near miss that I exceeded the
manufacturer's load specification, but I am still here to talk about it.
Keep in mind I am not referring to the recent accident because we have
no idea what happened at this point except that 2 observers say the saw
structural damage
to the craft before impact.
Jim
Tim Juhl wrote:
>
>
> As I am still building my XL events such as the recent crash damp my enthusiasm
somewhat, but I am not ready to give up yet. That said, I do have one request
of Chris Heintz and Zenith aircraft which I can sum up as "Details." They
published pictures of the most recent structural tests but provided no specific
information on the results. Was the wing tested to -3 or to - 6 like it says
on my plans. They talk about an extensive flight test program... I would like
to know the details of such tests. For example - was the test aircraft exposed
to abrupt full control movements at maneuvering speed without experiencing
damage? The best way to quell wild speculation is to replace it with facts,
not just assurances.
>
> Pardon me for being so windy...
>
> Tim Juhl
>
> Do not archive
>
> --------
> ______________
> CFII
> Champ L16A flying
> Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
> Working on fuselage
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175728#175728
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
no news. but as far as I know the investigation is still going on.
Of course, I would let you know as soon as I get more information.
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Dominguez" <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 8:39 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
> <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>
> Is there any new info about the Barcelona crash?
>
>
> [quote="Iberplanes"]When the witness says both wings folding in together,
> makes me remember the pictures Ive seen for the Barcelona crash. Sorry
> I cant share them because of the investigation still going on.
>
> Alberto Martin
>
>> ---
>
>
> --------
> William Dominguez
> Zodiac 601XL Plans
> Miami Florida
> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175748#175748
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash |
sorry, but witness are wrong too ie. Austrailia
On 4/9/08, Iberplanes IGL <iberplanes@gmail.com> wrote:
> When the witness says both wings folding in together, makes me remember the
> pictures Ive seen for the Barcelona crash. Sorry I cant share them because
> of the investigation still going on.
>
> Alberto Martin
> Iberplanes IGL
> http://www.iberplanes.es
> Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Gower
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 7:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
>
>
> The 601 UL (European) and the 601 XL SP RTF (for sale in USA) from CZAW
> are two diferent airplanes.
>
> I remember talking to Chip (from CZAW), some time ago, when we bought our
> 701 RTF (ready To Fly)... Aabout the less gross weight in the 601 UL. they
> built, compared to the gross weight for the XL RTF they offered as Sport
> Pilot category in USA.
>
> He told me that was that gross weight in the UL, because the European
> Ultralight regs have stated that gross weight as limit for the Ultralight
> category for a two seater.
> The newer planes (now SP) were builts directly from the ZAC kits, until
> they finish their deal.
>
> Much of the European Uls that now are in the SP category, had to re
> design and reinforce (like the SP parts in the 701 kits from ZAC), to
> comply with the USA new gross limit for the SP category,
>
> At least this is what I understood from those emails (if that german guy
> Altz...something... I cant remember his name :-)..
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower
> Flying from Chapala Mexico
> 701 912S
> Still building 801 XL kit Jab 3300.
> DO NOT ARCHIVE.
>
> pavel569 <pm569@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> According to FAA this N number was made by Czech Aircraft Works , so I
> guess its the European ultralight version with standard empty weight of
> 595lbs, max gross weight 992lbs. This type has (POH) the stall speeds as
> stated on the website 32 resp. 26knots.
>
> --------
> Pavel
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash) |
Hi, Craig. And thanks for asking!
We've all been contributing to the KITPLANES news blog, which has a link on the
splash page for the magazine. You can see what we've all found to be interesting
there very easily.
I think you can easily get there with kitplanesmag.com.
Good show, so far.
rick
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>Sent: Apr 9, 2008 1:19 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: SnF (was RE: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash)
>
>
>Rick, what's the most interesting thing you have seen at the show so far?
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:06 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
>
>
>Guys, guys, guys...
>
>(and Sabrina)
>
>Here's what I know to be true from my visit to the Zenith display at Sun 'n' Fun
this morning. The aircraft that crashed was one of the first 601s made by
Czech Aircraft Works (CAW), and was recently acquired by the pilot involved in
the accident. He had owned the airplane for less than two months. No report
on his familiarity with the airplane.
>
>Obviously, we're all saddened by the accident and our hearts go out to the family.
But further speculation on the cause really serves no useful purpose until
the facts come in.
>
>As a 601 pilot, I also want to know what's up, if anything. But I'll leave the
investigation to those who have direct engineering knowledge of the airframe,
and the professional investigators. Frankly, Zenith isn't the kind of company
that would keep any known (or even suspected) issues hidden in order to sell
airframes.
>
>They're just not that kind of people.
>
>And yes, I'll continue to fly my Zodiac in the mean time.
>
>Rick Lindstrom
>N42KP
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net>
>>Sent: Apr 9, 2008 12:32 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
>>
>>
>>Sabrina and fellow builders,
>>It's possible the N numbers were vinyl and the new owner preferred the look of
the 3 inch numbers over the 12 inch.
>>
>>>From what I can see by studying the picture of the aircraft being recovered,
both wings are still associated with the main wreckage with the section of the
spar where the fuel tanks rest exposed (tanks probably tore away). The rudder
and horizontal tail are absent along with the main gear. I can't tell if the
engine or anything FWF is still attached but it would not be unusual for it
to break free in such an extreme impact.
>>
>>We will have to wait and hear what the investigators have to say when they eventually
publish their findings unless someone "in the know" releases some info
beforehand.
>>
>>>From my experience in Search and Rescue, I can tell you that in most cases where
a plane went "straight in" with little damage to nearby foliage and the like
it was a "Stall-spin" accident. It would be premature to assume that such
is the case in this instance but being human, we are all impatient for answers.
For example, the mention of a "heart attack" in the news report was made by
someone with less knowledge of the accident than those of us who monitor this
list.
>>
>>I think what bothers all of us the most is that we just don't know for sure whether
there is a structural issue with the aircraft or if the problems lies with
how we fly it. The thought that you could be flying along, doing everything
right and have a wing fail would scare anyone. On the other hand, if it is
an issue with pilots making abrupt forward elevator movements then we can deal
with that (training and control stops.) Gig's story of the model airplane is
a perfect example of the forces involved.
>
>>
>>As I am still building my XL events such as the recent crash damp my enthusiasm
somewhat, but I am not ready to give up yet. That said, I do have one request
of Chris Heintz and Zenith aircraft which I can sum up as "Details." They
published pictures of the most recent structural tests but provided no specific
information on the results. Was the wing tested to -3 or to - 6 like it says
on my plans. They talk about an extensive flight test program... I would like
to know the details of such tests. For example - was the test aircraft exposed
to abrupt full control movements at maneuvering speed without experiencing
damage? The best way to quell wild speculation is to replace it with facts,
not just assurances.
>>
>>Pardon me for being so windy...
>>
>>Tim Juhl
>>
>>Do not archive
>>
>>--------
>>______________
>>CFII
>>Champ L16A flying
>>Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
>>Working on fuselage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175728#175728
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S |
Have just read of another 601 crashing because of early witness accounts
describing seeing it falling with it's right wing flapping alongside of
the fuselage. There have been numerous discussions, including one
response from Mr. Heinz, regarding the 'too wide' spacing of the ribs
(suggesting there should be several more added. Additionally, there
have been questions regarding the strength of the wing spar/to/fuselage
attach points and their strength under even moderate loadings.
Many respondants suggest pilot error (PIO, trying aerobatic manuevers,
sudden control inputs for example). As a newbie builder of the XL, I've
decided AGAINST proceeding with building the aircraft until some
definite statements regarding structural integrety and perhaps even
third party engineering tests and results on the airframe/wing systems
are presented before continuing.
Sadly, this certainly leaves a lot of builders and wannabes confused and
concerned about the sudden increase in wing failures.
My own thoughts are possibly installing 4 additional ribs on each wing
and/or increasing the wing skins to ALL being .025 thickness rather than
the .016 used in some locations. Perhaps that and increasing the
length of the center wing spar and spreading out the stress loads
further along the attach points might help.
Although an attendant increase in weight is forseeable perhaps the loss
in 'useful load' would justify these or other considerations and at
least provide the builder/pilot with a more secure appreciation for this
beautiful little aircraft. I, for one, would not be upset if the
aircraft carried less fuel (in order to stay under the LSA 1320# rule
knowing that this increased engineering would provide a larger margin of
error while flying it.
I am most interested in what the NTSP will report in it's findings.
Further, I am very interested in any thoughts or ideas other
builder/pilots are considering in these areas.
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash) |
> I think you can easily get there with kitplanesmag.com.
That link didn't work for me. But this did:
http://www.kitplanesmag.blogspot.com/
You can also go to http://www.kitplanes.com/ and click on the big yellow box at the top of the page.
-- Craig
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S |
Early witness accounts accounts are wrong very often. If you have a
fuselage kit I will take it off your hands.
On 4/9/08, John Reinking <reinkings@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Have just read of another 601 crashing because of early witness accounts
> describing seeing it falling with it's right wing flapping alongside of
> the fuselage. There have been numerous discussions, including one
> response from Mr. Heinz, regarding the 'too wide' spacing of the ribs
> (suggesting there should be several more added. Additionally, there
> have been questions regarding the strength of the wing spar/to/fuselage
> attach points and their strength under even moderate loadings.
>
> Many respondants suggest pilot error (PIO, trying aerobatic manuevers,
> sudden control inputs for example). As a newbie builder of the XL, I've
> decided AGAINST proceeding with building the aircraft until some
> definite statements regarding structural integrety and perhaps even
> third party engineering tests and results on the airframe/wing systems
> are presented before continuing.
>
> Sadly, this certainly leaves a lot of builders and wannabes confused and
> concerned about the sudden increase in wing failures.
>
> My own thoughts are possibly installing 4 additional ribs on each wing
> and/or increasing the wing skins to ALL being .025 thickness rather than
> the .016 used in some locations. Perhaps that and increasing the
> length of the center wing spar and spreading out the stress loads
> further along the attach points might help.
>
> Although an attendant increase in weight is forseeable perhaps the loss
> in 'useful load' would justify these or other considerations and at
> least provide the builder/pilot with a more secure appreciation for this
> beautiful little aircraft. I, for one, would not be upset if the
> aircraft carried less fuel (in order to stay under the LSA 1320# rule
> knowing that this increased engineering would provide a larger margin of
> error while flying it.
>
> I am most interested in what the NTSP will report in it's findings.
> Further, I am very interested in any thoughts or ideas other
> builder/pilots are considering in these areas.
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S |
[quote="reinkings(at)comcast.net"]Have just read of another 601 crashing because
of early witness accounts
describing seeing it falling with it's right wing flapping alongside of
the fuselage. There have been numerous discussions, including one
response from Mr. Heinz, regarding the 'too wide' spacing of the ribs
(suggesting there should be several more added. Additionally, there
have been questions regarding the strength of the wing spar/to/fuselage
attach points and their strength under even moderate loadings.
You might want to do a little better fact based research before coming to these
conclusions and deciding you're an aeronautical engineer.
Mr. Heintz never discussed anything about ribs. Read his public letters on the
Zenith website. Never a discussion or evidence of spar to fuselage strength.
Only 1 NTSB report that states a wing failed due to overstress and this is that
accident that prompted Chris Heintz's actions and letters.
Two other accidents with in-flight breakup that you can read about on the NTSB
site and wait for the report. As for this accident, you're coming to this conclusion
from one "witness" who saw a spinning plane for a short time? Other "witnesses"
claimed a rough engine and struggle to stay airborne. Which will you
believe? Or, wait for the facts.
That's my feedback to you, some will agree some will want more ribs... sorry if
I've misinterpreted your note.
Scott
Do not archive
--------
601 XL kit N596SW reserved
Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage
www.scottwaters.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175797#175797
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
VA is defined as the speed at which a full control deflection can be made abruptly
and the aircraft will stall before any damage results to the airframe.
Chris H has given us a fix that will reduce the amount of elevator deflection available.
So even though there is no evidence that Sub VA flight has ever resulted
in a failure it will be much harder to overstress the airframe.
But remember, even if you install the fix it is not a license to slam the stick
forward.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175805#175805
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S |
Yet another "I am not qualified to make this opinion, I am not an
aeronautical engineer, I am going to make a remark that sounds like it has
weight, but I really just want to spout my mouth....." opinion.
I heard that TMZ.com is hiring....there you can speculate, make all the
unfounded and un-fact based opinions you want...and get paid!
Flame off.
Paul
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, John Reinking <reinkings@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Have just read of another 601 crashing because of early witness accounts
> describing seeing it falling with it's right wing flapping alongside of the
> fuselage. There have been numerous discussions, including one response
> from Mr. Heinz, regarding the 'too wide' spacing of the ribs (suggesting
> there should be several more added. Additionally, there have been
> questions regarding the strength of the wing spar/to/fuselage attach points
> and their strength under even moderate loadings.
>
> Many respondants suggest pilot error (PIO, trying aerobatic manuevers,
> sudden control inputs for example). As a newbie builder of the XL, I've
> decided AGAINST proceeding with building the aircraft until some definite
> statements regarding structural integrety and perhaps even third party
> engineering tests and results on the airframe/wing systems are presented
> before continuing.
>
> Sadly, this certainly leaves a lot of builders and wannabes confused and
> concerned about the sudden increase in wing failures.
>
> My own thoughts are possibly installing 4 additional ribs on each wing
> and/or increasing the wing skins to ALL being .025 thickness rather than the
> .016 used in some locations. Perhaps that and increasing the length of
> the center wing spar and spreading out the stress loads further along the
> attach points might help.
>
> Although an attendant increase in weight is forseeable perhaps the loss in
> 'useful load' would justify these or other considerations and at least
> provide the builder/pilot with a more secure appreciation for this beautiful
> little aircraft. I, for one, would not be upset if the aircraft carried
> less fuel (in order to stay under the LSA 1320# rule knowing that this
> increased engineering would provide a larger margin of error while flying
> it.
>
> I am most interested in what the NTSP will report in it's findings.
> Further, I am very interested in any thoughts or ideas other builder/pilots
> are considering in these areas.
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Vfe Va Vne AC 90-89A |
For those of you who have flown off your 40 hours, what are your values for Vfe,
Va, Vne as listed in your POH?
Did anyone actually apply swift full control inputs at 1320 pounds at ever increasing
speeds approaching Va and record the G force values?
Would the FAA have required detailed G force values at various air speeds and control
inputs to prove Va for the prototype CAW and AMD S-LSAs?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175836#175836
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
You can make a deal with yourself and with the 701... (Just talking, I dont know
you or seen a photo of yourself)
For every pound of weight you loose (until you reach 150 lbs), add the same
in extra aluminum skin thickness in the 701 :-) :-) :-) so the plane performs
as advertised
Sorry for the joke :-)
The 701 is a great airplane for more than 25 years (maybe more) of no fatalities
(but only one: the recent recless flying wing strike to the floor) .
YES, we all are waiting for the results of this accidents research in the XL's
, I thrust Mr Heintz and Family with the results and any advised correction
IF needed.
I will gladly rebuilt any part if advised.
For now, seems that the Australian plane had the wings attached once they found
it in the ocean. so no structural failure in this wings, in this case..
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Do not archive
Jerry Hey <jerry@jerryhey.com> wrote:
I am not a 601 builder or pilot. My heart goes out to all the 601
guys. I would not take a demo ride in one until what is going on is
understood and remedied.
I am about to start scratch building a 701. I have built tube and rag
in the past.
The 601 crashes have caused me to take another look at the 701. Quite
honestly, I love this airplane and it is probably strong enough to
never have a structural failure BUT nobody could call it rugged. The
thin skins, widely separated ribs, continual talk about oil canning.
I can imagine ia 701 is not difficult to dent. Perhaps the trade off
of structure vs weight has tilted too far toward light weight. Maybe
that is true but just for me. Others would quite rightly feel different.
I would not mind adding a few pounds of toughness to my airplane.
Jerry
__________________________________________________
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vfe Va Vne AC 90-89A |
Hi
the UK report on the pa-181
had an interest technical explantion what Va
I am using my phone and can't get to it easly
The short answer is I don't think it is tested value
E
On 4/9/08, Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com> wrote:
>
> For those of you who have flown off your 40 hours, what are your values for
> Vfe, Va, Vne as listed in your POH?
>
> Did anyone actually apply swift full control inputs at 1320 pounds at ever
> increasing speeds approaching Va and record the G force values?
>
> Would the FAA have required detailed G force values at various air speeds
> and control inputs to prove Va for the prototype CAW and AMD S-LSAs?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175836#175836
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Really bad news....S&F crash) |
Sorry for the typo. That should be "kitplanes.com".
It's been a long, hot, dehydrating day...
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>Sent: Apr 9, 2008 6:12 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: SnF (was RE: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash)
>
>
>Hi, Craig. And thanks for asking!
>
>We've all been contributing to the KITPLANES news blog, which has a link on the
splash page for the magazine. You can see what we've all found to be interesting
there very easily.
>
>I think you can easily get there with kitplanesmag.com.
>
>Good show, so far.
>
>rick
>
>do not archive
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>>Sent: Apr 9, 2008 1:19 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: SnF (was RE: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash)
>>
>>
>>Rick, what's the most interesting thing you have seen at the show so far?
>>
>>-- Craig
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:06 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
>>
>>
>>Guys, guys, guys...
>>
>>(and Sabrina)
>>
>>Here's what I know to be true from my visit to the Zenith display at Sun 'n'
Fun this morning. The aircraft that crashed was one of the first 601s made by
Czech Aircraft Works (CAW), and was recently acquired by the pilot involved in
the accident. He had owned the airplane for less than two months. No report
on his familiarity with the airplane.
>>
>>Obviously, we're all saddened by the accident and our hearts go out to the family.
But further speculation on the cause really serves no useful purpose until
the facts come in.
>>
>>As a 601 pilot, I also want to know what's up, if anything. But I'll leave the
investigation to those who have direct engineering knowledge of the airframe,
and the professional investigators. Frankly, Zenith isn't the kind of company
that would keep any known (or even suspected) issues hidden in order to sell
airframes.
>>
>>They're just not that kind of people.
>>
>>And yes, I'll continue to fly my Zodiac in the mean time.
>>
>>Rick Lindstrom
>>N42KP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net>
>>>Sent: Apr 9, 2008 12:32 PM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Really bad news....S&F crash
>>>
>>>
>>>Sabrina and fellow builders,
>>>It's possible the N numbers were vinyl and the new owner preferred the look
of the 3 inch numbers over the 12 inch.
>>>
>>>>From what I can see by studying the picture of the aircraft being recovered,
both wings are still associated with the main wreckage with the section of the
spar where the fuel tanks rest exposed (tanks probably tore away). The rudder
and horizontal tail are absent along with the main gear. I can't tell if
the engine or anything FWF is still attached but it would not be unusual for it
to break free in such an extreme impact.
>>>
>>>We will have to wait and hear what the investigators have to say when they eventually
publish their findings unless someone "in the know" releases some info
beforehand.
>>>
>>>>From my experience in Search and Rescue, I can tell you that in most cases
where a plane went "straight in" with little damage to nearby foliage and the
like it was a "Stall-spin" accident. It would be premature to assume that such
is the case in this instance but being human, we are all impatient for answers.
For example, the mention of a "heart attack" in the news report was made
by someone with less knowledge of the accident than those of us who monitor this
list.
>>>
>>>I think what bothers all of us the most is that we just don't know for sure
whether there is a structural issue with the aircraft or if the problems lies
with how we fly it. The thought that you could be flying along, doing everything
right and have a wing fail would scare anyone. On the other hand, if it is
an issue with pilots making abrupt forward elevator movements then we can deal
with that (training and control stops.) Gig's story of the model airplane
is a perfect example of the forces involved.
>>
>>>
>>>As I am still building my XL events such as the recent crash damp my enthusiasm
somewhat, but I am not ready to give up yet. That said, I do have one request
of Chris Heintz and Zenith aircraft which I can sum up as "Details." They
published pictures of the most recent structural tests but provided no specific
information on the results. Was the wing tested to -3 or to - 6 like it says
on my plans. They talk about an extensive flight test program... I would
like to know the details of such tests. For example - was the test aircraft exposed
to abrupt full control movements at maneuvering speed without experiencing
damage? The best way to quell wild speculation is to replace it with facts,
not just assurances.
>>>
>>>Pardon me for being so windy...
>>>
>>>Tim Juhl
>>>
>>>Do not archive
>>>
>>>--------
>>>______________
>>>CFII
>>>Champ L16A flying
>>>Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
>>>Working on fuselage
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175728#175728
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vfe Va Vne AC 90-89A |
I understand it is a calculated value. My question is, has anyone, tested it.
Since the rule of thumb is that a 4G aircraft's Va is 2X its stall speed, if
the CAW stalls at 26, Va would be 52 knots if it were 4G, since it is 6Gs, what
is its calculated Va at 1320?
One would think someone would have flown the airplane at 5 knots above stall, used
"full from neutral" elevator deflection and recorded the G forces. Then
at 10 knots above stall, etc. upto at least 2X stall speed.
One would expect "full from neutral" deflections to equal 4Gs at 2X stall. My
question is, has anyone done it?
I am not talking about rudder or aileron deflections, just "full elevator deflections
from neutral." Flight 587 reminds us that flying below Va does not protect
us from limit to limit vertical surface movement.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175869#175869
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vfe Va Vne AC 90-89A |
At 00:02 10-04-08, you wrote:
>
>I understand it is a calculated value. My question is, has anyone,
>tested it. Since the rule of thumb is that a 4G aircraft's Va is
>2X its stall speed, if the CAW stalls at 26, Va would be 52 knots if
>it were 4G, since it is 6Gs, what is its calculated Va at 1320?
You'd only want to go as far as the limit load, which might be 4g
here. (I haven't been following the discussions closely.)
The speed vs G relationship is just based on lift squaring with
speed. So for 6g the stall speed would be up by root(6) = 2.45* the
one g stall speed.
>One would expect "full from neutral" deflections to equal 4Gs at 2X
>stall. My question is, has anyone done it?
I'm not really up on my flight testing theory, but as far as I recall
nobody tests for Va. Planes do get tested for Vne in flight. I don't
think testing a G-loading is all that common, although it may be
done, such as for aerobatic aircraft or by pilots who just want to
check their own homebuilt. That's usually left more for ground static
tests, checking for no permenant set at limit load, and no complete
failure at ultimate load.
For Va it would be awkward to test in flight. If everything isn't
perfect, one could overstress the aircraft (past limit load). In any
case one might get some nasty high G accelerated stalls going on when
one hits the stall break. But as you wrote, one could start at low
speeds and low loadings and work ones way up. Still, it sounds more
like something to do only on an aerobatic aircraft, and keeping the
tests below Va to avoid overstressing.
There need not be any particular relationship between elevator
deflection and the Va stall point. The elevator angle available may
be chosen for any number of reasons, including being able to raise
the nose on a forward C of G landing, and just selecting a convenient
number (eg, +/- 25 degrees). So who knows what the elevator angle
will be at a high speed high G stall.
I think Va is normally just something calculated on a graph, rather
than something flight tested. As long as one knows the limit load,
and the 1g stall speed, Va can be calculated. (Of course as one
learns, somewhat counterintuitively as a student pilot, Va goes down
when the plane is loaded more lightly than gross.)
What is done in flight testing is to check the stick force per g (at
some chosen speed or speeds, like Va). That'll give some idea how
sensitive the aircraft feels and whether someone rough on the
controls is likely to overstress the aircraft. An aerobatic aircraft
can get away with a lower stick force per g as more g is needed
before damaging things, and the pilot has to be able to access the
higher g regime without too much stick pressure.
Some of the old CAFE flight test reports in Sport Aviation in the
late 90s were good for all the stick force per g type of techy reporting.
(http://www.cafefoundation.org/v2/research_aprs.php) E.g., at Va
one RV-6A was getting to 2.5 g with 7 lbs force, compared to a C-152
needing 27 lbs.
That's the best I can do for a quick late-at-night answer.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vfe Va Vne AC 90-89A |
Thank you... late for me too...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175875#175875
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|